Reconstruction of a child's forefoot defect using a distally based pedicled medial plantar flap

Distally Based Medial Plantar Flap: A Classification of the Surgical Techniques

The proximally based medial plantar flap is considered to be the reference standard for heel reconstruction. Although less well-studied, a distally based medial plantar flap is a suitable alternative when used to cover a distal foot defect, especially of the hallux, first metatarsal, or metatarsophalangeal joint. Our objective was to provide a complete description and propose a classification of the different surgical procedures used to harvest this flap. A review of the data reported in the MEDLINE database until May 2017 concerning the distally based medial plantar flap was performed. We have illustrated the different surgical procedures through a case series. Three approaches or "types" of flap have been described, and we have proposed a classification for reconstructive surgeons. In type 1, the plantar pedicle is ligatured before division into the medial and lateral plantar artery. In type 2, the medial plantar pedicle is cut proximally just after division. In type 3, the flap is harvested to include the fasciocutaneous perforator vessels, as an advancement flap or a propeller perforator flap. A distally based medial plantar flap affords adequate and reliable coverage of the weightbearing zone. Because the donor site drawbacks are minimal, this flap is a useful option for distal foot reconstruction, and reconstructive surgeons should remember this flap. The type 1 flap appears to be associated with a minimal risk of flap necrosis, even in those with diabetes or arteriopathy, and can cover even the most distal defect.

Surgical technique: repair of forefoot skin and soft tissue defects using a lateral tarsal flap with a reverse dorsalis pedis artery pedicle: a retrospective study of 11 patients

BACKGROUND

Various authors have proposed flaps to reconstruct traumatic forefoot skin and soft tissue defects, especially with exposure of tendon and/or bone although which is best for particular circumstances is unclear.

DESCRIPTION OF TECHNIQUE

The indications for the technique were a forefoot defect area of no more than 8-cm × 8-cm and a well-preserved lateral tarsal (LT) donor site. The injured tendons were repaired using tendon grafts. The free dorsalis pedis flap was outlined by centering it on the cutaneous branch of the LT artery and tailoring it to the size of the wound, allowing 0.5-cm margins in length and width. The flap was rotated around the plantar perforating branch of the dorsalis pedis artery (DPA) to cover the forefoot defect. The lateral dorsalis pedis cutaneous nerve was anastomosed with the recipient plantar nerve stump. The donor site was covered with an inguinal, full-thickness skin graft.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Traumatic forefoot skin and soft tissue defects with exposure of the tendon and/or bone involving 11 feet in 11 patients (mean age, 32 years) were covered using a LT flap with a reversed DPA pedicle. Three patients with forefoot defects underwent emergency repair within 8 hours of injury, whereas eight patients required delayed repair. All patients were followed up for at least 6 months (mean, 13 months; range, 6-24 months).

RESULTS

All flaps survived uneventfully, except for two that had superficial marginal necrosis or severe venous insufficiency. All skin grafts covering the donor sites survived and all wounds healed. None of the patients had restricted standing or walking at followups. The two-point discrimination was 4 mm to 10 mm at 6 months postoperative. The mean hallux-metatarsophalangeal-interphalangeal scale score was 93 points (range, 87-98 points).

CONCLUSIONS

Our observations suggest the LT flap with a reversed DPA pedicle is a reasonable option for repair of traumatic forefoot skin and soft tissue defects with exposure of tendon and/or bone but a well-preserved LT donor site and is associated with minimal morbidity.